That stupid $!*# is costing lives

**leejo** · 08-13-2004, 07:33 PM

From another forum:

Kerry is doing for the Iraqi insurgents exactly what he did for the North Vietnamese more than thirty years ago. He is assuring them that, if they keep fighting, the United States will pull out and let them do as they please.

Per "Kerry on Iraq" (Wall Street Journal, 8/13/04, A14), Kerry said, "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan. ...we're going to get our troops home where they belong."

The effect of this statement can only be to encourage the enemy to keep fighting-- certainly through November 2 if Kerry loses, and into next year if he wins. Kerry is effectively encouraging the insurgents (Michael Moore's "Minutemen") to kill American troops, just as his actions thirty years ago encouraged the NVA and Viet Cong to keep fighting and killing American troops.

This story should be circulated as widely as possible. It reinforces the argument that this individual is truly "unfit for command."

_________

He won't take responsibility for the car in his garage (that's my wife's SUV), the words that leave his lips (irresponsible speech writers made me say "benedict-arnold CEO's), and he opens his yap for personal benefit at the expense of American soldiers in the field - in 1971, and now in 2004.

The only acceptable message to deliver to the enemy is that there is no hope. Give up now.

**Pokerface** · 08-13-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

From another forum:

Kerry is doing for the Iraqi insurgents exactly what he did for the North Vietnamese more than thirty years ago. He is assuring them that, if they keep fighting, the United States will pull out and let them do as they please.

Per "Kerry on Iraq" (Wall Street Journal, 8/13/04, A14), Kerry said, "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan. ...we're going to get our troops home where they belong."

The effect of this statement can only be to encourage the enemy to keep fighting-- certainly through November 2 if Kerry loses, and into next year if he wins. Kerry is effectively encouraging the insurgents (Michael Moore's "Minutemen") to kill American troops, just as his actions thirty years ago encouraged the NVA and Viet Cong to keep fighting and killing American troops.

This story should be circulated as widely as possible. It reinforces the argument that this individual is truly "unfit for command."

_________

He won't take responsibility for the car in his garage (that's my wife's SUV), the words that leave his lips (irresponsible speech writers made me say "benedict-arnold CEO's), and he opens his yap for personal benefit at the expense of American soldiers in the field - in 1971, and now in 2004.

The only acceptable message to deliver to the enemy is that there is no hope. Give up now.

So he wants to pull troops from a country we shouldn't have been in in the first place. Good!

**luna** · 08-13-2004, 10:46 PM

Good?

Whether or not you supported the war is irrelevant at this point. We went in there and removed their leader. It's our responsibility to wrap this up and do it right. How can you say you support the idea of pulling everyone out of there at this point? Do you want the Iraqi people to be supported, or do you want the country to crumble into total anarchy?

C'mon, now.

**Pokerface** · 08-13-2004, 11:22 PM

I don't want another American to die in a country in which we had no business being in the first place.

You're right, it doesn't matter whether I was for the war or against it; it happened. Rather, it's happening.

Kerry said (according to the original post's quote) that he wants to "significantly reduce" American military presence in Iraq, and maybe I'm too patriotic, but I can't see how that's anything but a good thing.

**luna** · 08-14-2004, 12:13 AM

Americans are going to die, whether it be in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or in the states themselves. These gentlemen joined the military to defend their country and its interests. This is the choice they made.

Personally, I would like to see NO ONE lose their lives regardless of what patch of dirt they call home, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.

RYN · 08-14-2004, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

Good?

Whether or not you supported the war is irrelevant at this point. We went in there and removed their leader. It's our responsibility to wrap this up and do it right. How can you say you support the idea of pulling everyone out of there at this point? Do you want the Iraqi people to be supported, or do you want the country to crumble into total anarchy?

C'mon, now.

Sounds about right to me....

**CingularDuality** · 08-14-2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Kerry said (according to the original post's quote) that he wants to "significantly reduce" American military presence in Iraq, and maybe I'm too patriotic, but I can't see how that's anything but a good thing.

Maybe you can't see it, but have you asked any of the brave men and women that are over there right now? Y'know, we have TG members over there right this minute? Why don't you ask them? Do you think they'll say that withdrawing will be 'nothing but a good thing'?

Wintermute · 08-14-2004, 08:26 AM

If our troops withdraw, Iraq goes to pot and it will be our fault. If our troops carry on as they are now, they will never be able to "win" as every kill results in a martyr and an encouragement to others to fight. While there is violence, it is very hard to organise democratic elections, but until those elections happen, the violence won't stop. Catch 22, in more ways than one.

**CingularDuality** · 08-14-2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wintermute

If our troops withdraw, Iraq goes to pot and it will be our fault. If our troops carry on as they are now, they will never be able to "win" as every kill results in a martyr and an encouragement to others to fight. While there is violence, it is very hard to organise democratic elections, but until those elections happen, the violence won't stop. Catch 22, in more ways than one.

I agree. But as their police force continues to train and the interim government gets a better hold on the reins, I think we're going to see some fundamental changes in the way the people look at non-Iraqi insurgents. I think (hope) that it's just a matter of time...

jex · 08-16-2004, 12:05 PM

Apparently Kerry's blood is bluer than Bush's. That being the case and following the example of history, Kerry will be America's next president - it's already been decided.

**Pokerface** · 08-16-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wintermute

If our troops withdraw, Iraq goes to pot and it will be our fault. If our troops carry on as they are now, they will never be able to "win" as every kill results in a martyr and an encouragement to others to fight. While there is violence, it is very hard to organise democratic elections, but until those elections happen, the violence won't stop. Catch 22, in more ways than one.

And that Catch 22 is why I'm pulling for folks to be home instead of there. Personally speaking, "Iraq going to pot" seems to be happening now in spite of our presence (or perhaps because of it), so the withdrawal of troops causing Iraq to go to pot doesn't seem like a wholly unreasonable option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cing

Maybe you can't see it, but have you asked any of the brave men and women that are over there right now? Y'know, we have TG members over there right this minute? Why don't you ask them? Do you think they'll say that withdrawing will be 'nothing but a good thing'?

I'd be interested to know how much good the average infantryperson thinks they're doing, yes. I have not quizzed anyone.

It's never too plate to stop dicking around in the affairs of a sovreign nation.

CK · 08-18-2004, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

It's never too plate to stop dicking around in the affairs of a sovreign nation.

sovereign - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereign&r=67
adj.
1. Self-governing; independent

So, what are the "just", fair forms of government we believe human beings deserve?

A dictatorship is not "self governing", the people are not governing themselves, a dictator is. An oligarchy is not "self governing". A theocracy is not "self governing".

So far in the west the only type of governments we think are "just" are democracies and pure socialist states (the latter never having been successfully done in modern times).

If we leave Iraq now, what type of government do you think will arise? Will it be "just"? Will there be a better or worse chance - all things considered - of a "just government" arising from whatever scenarios you consider?

If it makes it easier, replace "just" with "least number of human lives lost", remembering that dictatorships and oligarchies and theocracies and unstable governments that get into wars with their neighbours often kill TONS of people. Over 10,000 Iraqi's were killed per year by Sadaam's security apparatus, and 500,000 died in the Iran/Iraq war. Also remember that right now, at least 50 percent of the people dying are out and out murders intent on killing others because they want to have their way and are willing to KILL for it, while in the other options the majority do not deserve to die and are often chosen specifically because they *are* virtuous.

Do you believe one western life is worth the life of any other citizen of this world? No? So at what ratio of "dead western white guys" vs "dead people from another country" would you be willing to sacrifice the western white guy? 1-2? 1-10? 1-100? They say 50,000 are already dead in Sudan and predictions run that without *real useful* foreign intervention, 300,000 will die. What's your plan? What was your plan back when Rwanda broke?

Quote:

Personally speaking, "Iraq going to pot" seems to be happening now in spite of our presence

That's a matter of opinion, and what we hear from almost every single soldier coming back and every single Iraqi blogger is that the western media is HEAVILY slanting the story towards "ooh look at all the violence" - clearly the western media only covers the stuff that will sell their product, and that's "action", furthermore the only stuff that catches the attention of the oblivious "common citizens" are when violence makes the front page.

The only people that seem to be on the side of "get out right now unequivocally no matter what" are:

a) pacificsts (these people often have the hardest time dealing with reality's myriad of choices and the possibility that the "best outcome" isn't necessarily obtained through passifism - although Ghandi proved that in certain circumstances it can..)
b) people who only read western front pages.
c) real hardasses of the "let them eat cake" variety.

Yeah, I remember grade 11 "international law" back in 1988, when we learned that "we don't have the moral right to interfere in the goings on in other sovereign nations", and I knew then that it was utter bull**** - short of being applied to other democracies that are not gravely violating the civil rights of masses of other humans. (Remember, genocides aren't carried out by individuals - they're carried out by NATIONS and ARMIES)

Below is my "Iraq information source" bookmark folder that I've been reading from for the past 12 months, why don't you spend a while reading and make up your mind using some sources that aren't solely governed by the profit motive.

I'll suggest these entries of recent interest:

http://www.commentarypage.com/johnso...2904_print.php
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/arc...51118113969316
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/0...aq-part-8.html
http://beyondtherim.meisheid.com/index.php?m=20040728

Full list:

http://iraqblogcount.blogspot.com/
http://www.command-post.org/iraq_index.html
http://cbftw.blogspot.com/
http://www.iraqwar.info/
http://www.strategypage.com/
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
http://www.kevinsites.net/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
http://kurdo.blogspot.com/
http://www.agonist.org/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/guestblogs/abuhadi.html
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
http://auto_sol.tao.ca/taxonomy/page/or/90
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/
http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/
http://www.iraq-today.com/
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://tryingtogrok.mu.nu/
http://gatorsix.blogspot.com/
http://anamericansoldier.blogspot.com/
http://oraculations.blogspot.com/
http://www.mosnews.com/news/
http://www.soundfury.us/
http://www.agonist.org/
http://www.ilovemyhazardpay.com/
http://www.darchiver.com/gallery/Vince
http://www.savagenet.com/expat/viewf...872c97ce047731
http://www.uberforce.com/blog/
http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org//iraqphotos.asp
http://www.brandonblog.homestead.com/files/blogger.html
http://www.blackfive.net/main/

I was quite impressed by the mission statement that seems to underly current US policy moves towards the whole Israel/Palestine issue. It comes down to this - paraphrased - Policy will be dictated by what will move to increase democracy and justice for as many as possible, irrespective of "historical claims or rights" over territory.

Man, I always get drawn back into playing at certain servers when I check out their forums and get sucked in

**Pokerface** · 08-18-2004, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CK

sovereign - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereign&r=67
adj.
1. Self-governing; independent

So, what are the "just", fair forms of government we believe human beings deserve?

A dictatorship is not "self governing", the people are not governing themselves, a dictator is. An oligarchy is not "self governing". A theocracy is not "self governing".

Wow, you're confused. Self-governing != democratic. Self-governing means that it's not attached to another country so far as its rulership goes. Colonies, for example, are not self-governing, as their leadership stems from abroad. Dictatorships and such are perfectly well self-governing.

Quote:

So far in the west the only type of governments we think are "just" are democracies and pure socialist states (the latter never having been successfully done in modern times).

Look up Sweden. I'll grant that socialism doesn't have the best track record, but Sweden seems to be doing pretty well.

Quote:

If we leave Iraq now, what type of government do you think will arise? Will it be "just"? Will there be a better or worse chance - all things considered - of a "just government" arising from whatever scenarios you consider?

Considering the effacacy of the current regime that we ourselves put in place...

Quote:

Do you believe one western life is worth the life of any other citizen of this world? No? So at what ratio of "dead western white guys" vs "dead people from another country" would you be willing to sacrifice the western white guy? 1-2? 1-10? 1-100? They say 50,000 are already dead in Sudan and predictions run that without *real useful* foreign intervention, 300,000 will die. What's your plan? What was your plan back when Rwanda broke?

Of course I think certain lives are worth more. My own, for instance, and those of my friends, take precedence over everyone else, and the pecking order goes down from there. You can try to take an altruistic stance on it if you choose, but everyone values certain lives over certain other.
Half a million Iraqis died in the Iran/Iraq war. And not one of them matters more than my seventh grade computer science teacher I lost recently, you know?

Quote:

That's a matter of opinion, and what we hear from almost every single soldier coming back and every single Iraqi blogger is that the western media is HEAVILY slanting the story towards "ooh look at all the violence" - clearly the western media only covers the stuff that will sell their product, and that's "action", furthermore the only stuff that catches the attention of the oblivious "common citizens" are when violence makes the front page.

OK. Matter of opinion.
If I'm wrong, and everything is hunky-dory over there, then why is the claim that we can reduce American troop numbers in a year is BAD thing?
I'll admit the media in general focuses on what's wrong, but it doesn't seem like there's been a real problem finding stuff.

Quote:

Yeah, I remember grade 11 "international law" back in 1988, when we learned that "we don't have the moral right to interfere in the goings on in other sovereign nations", and I knew then that it was utter bull**** - short of being applied to other democracies that are not gravely violating the civil rights of masses of other humans. (Remember, genocides aren't carried out by individuals - they're carried out by NATIONS and ARMIES)

Did Star Trek teach you nothing? :P

It's no nation's place to be applying its values on another. If, perhaps, the international politicos grew a set and got more forceful about their condemnation of this or that, THEN mayde it's feasible to waltz over into another country and start taking names. Nations that threw full in in 1991 aren't even tipping their hat towards us this time due to public outcry.

Quote:

Man, I always get drawn back into playing at certain servers when I check out their forums and get sucked in

This quote pleases me most.

Wintermute · 08-18-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CK

Do you believe one western life is worth the life of any other citizen of this world? No? So at what ratio of "dead western white guys" vs "dead people from another country" would you be willing to sacrifice the western white guy? 1-2? 1-10? 1-100? They say 50,000 are already dead in Sudan and predictions run that without *real useful* foreign intervention, 300,000 will die. What's your plan? What was your plan back when Rwanda broke?

Great post CK especially the above. There is a taboo about this but governments, society and public opinion think it is OK for foreigners to suffer if it avoids our sufference. Obviously everyone's friends/ family are more important to them then strangers but a western stranger's life should be equal to that of any other stranger in the eyes of all institutions and people.

**Wolfie** · 08-18-2004, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Considering the effacacy of the current regime that we ourselves put in place...

Not really a regime. You may want to check your facts first before blowing off on someone. The current government is an interm government choosen by UN and Iraq officials to run the country until the assembly can be established. If Najav hadn't turn into a hot spot recently, delegates were to be in Baghdad this week choosing a interm legislative branch which would lead them to the next process, establishing a permament constitution and eventually holding elections for office.

Quote:

Of course I think certain lives are worth more. My own, for instance, and those of my friends, take precedence over everyone else, and the pecking order goes down from there. You can try to take an altruistic stance on it if you choose, but everyone values certain lives over certain other.
Half a million Iraqis died in the Iran/Iraq war. And not one of them matters more than my seventh grade computer science teacher I lost recently, you know?

Its attitudes like this that allows things like the Holocust

08-13-2004, 07:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	*That stupid $!# is costing lives** From another forum: Kerry is doing for the Iraqi insurgents exactly what he did for the North Vietnamese more than thirty years ago. He is assuring them that, if they keep fighting, the United States will pull out and let them do as they please. Per "Kerry on Iraq" (Wall Street Journal, 8/13/04, A14), Kerry said, "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan. ...we're going to get our troops home where they belong." The effect of this statement can only be to encourage the enemy to keep fighting-- certainly through November 2 if Kerry loses, and into next year if he wins. Kerry is effectively encouraging the insurgents (Michael Moore's "Minutemen") to kill American troops, just as his actions thirty years ago encouraged the NVA and Viet Cong to keep fighting and killing American troops. This story should be circulated as widely as possible. It reinforces the argument that this individual is truly "unfit for command." _________ He won't take responsibility for the car in his garage (that's my wife's SUV), the words that leave his lips (irresponsible speech writers made me say "benedict-arnold CEO's), and he opens his yap for personal benefit at the expense of American soldiers in the field - in 1971, and now in 2004. The only acceptable message to deliver to the enemy is that there is no hope. Give up now.

08-13-2004, 10:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
luna Join Date: May 2003 Location: Rhode Island Age: 30 Posts: 4,136	*Re: That stupid $!# is costing lives Good? Whether or not you supported the war is irrelevant at this point. We went in there and removed their leader. It's our responsibility to wrap this up and do it right. How can you say you support the idea of pulling everyone out of there at this point? Do you want the Iraqi people to be supported, or do you want the country to crumble into total anarchy? C'mon, now. __________________ Resurgent's New Motivational Motto: "Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!" Jesus had a soulstone.**

08-13-2004, 11:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
Pokerface Join Date: May 2003 Location: MD, USA Age: 30 Posts: 5,787	*Re: That stupid $!# is costing lives I don't want another American to die in a country in which we had no business being in the first place. You're right, it doesn't matter whether I was for the war or against it; it happened. Rather, it's happening. Kerry said (according to the original post's quote) that he wants to "significantly reduce" American military presence in Iraq, and maybe I'm too patriotic, but I can't see how that's anything but a good thing. __________________ NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues. Tempus:** Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality. <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

08-14-2004, 12:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
luna Join Date: May 2003 Location: Rhode Island Age: 30 Posts: 4,136	*Re: That stupid $!# is costing lives Americans are going to die, whether it be in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or in the states themselves. These gentlemen joined the military to defend their country and its interests. This is the choice they made. Personally, I would like to see NO ONE lose their lives regardless of what patch of dirt they call home, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen. __________________ Resurgent's New Motivational Motto: "Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!" Jesus had a soulstone.**

08-14-2004, 08:26 AM	#8 (permalink)
Wintermute Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Age: 24 Posts: 1,166	*Re: That stupid $!# is costing lives** If our troops withdraw, Iraq goes to pot and it will be our fault. If our troops carry on as they are now, they will never be able to "win" as every kill results in a martyr and an encouragement to others to fight. While there is violence, it is very hard to organise democratic elections, but until those elections happen, the violence won't stop. Catch 22, in more ways than one. __________________ Wintermute Play EVE online. It's like being an accounting addict in space. www.MakePovertyHistory.com

08-16-2004, 12:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,430	*Re: That stupid $!# is costing lives** Apparently Kerry's blood is bluer than Bush's. That being the case and following the example of history, Kerry will be America's next president - it's already been decided. __________________ Jex

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links